BMC in LJ Academic NewsWire

[Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>]

Excerpted from LJN, thursday, 4 May:

Growing Pain: Editors Voice Complaints About Open Access Pioneer BioMed
Central

Is trouble brewing at open access pioneer BioMed Central (BMC)? This week
the BMC-owned magazine The Scientist published a lengthy article
suggesting that a number of editors at some of BMC's 93 independent
journals are unhappy with the publisher's efforts, and several were said
to be considering leaving the company altogether.  BMC, a for-profit open
access publisher founded in 2000, has been touted as an alternative to the
commercial subscription model, which is plagued by rampant inflation. Now,
as the company makes changes to its business, it is beginning to hear some
familiar complaints, including over price inflation. According to The
Scientist, BMC editors, who are not paid, are upset with recent increases
in BMC's author processing charge (APC), and the granting of fewer APC
waivers for papers whose authors cannot afford to pay the full APC. Also,
last year the new BMC contract required editors to transfer journal
ownership over to BMC. BMC publisher Matthew Cockerill defended the
changes, including the swelling APC. In January 2002, the APC was $500.
Today it is 750 pounds, about $1340. "Having published many thousands of
articles since then, we now have a much better idea of what we need to
charge to cover our costs and ensure financial sustainability," Cockerill
told the LJ Academic Newswire. Cockerill replaced founding publisher Jan
Velterop last year, after Velterop left BMC to pursue other open
access-related projects. Velterop later joined Springer.

Cockerill noted that the new APC was still "well within the range regarded
as reasonable by funders, and compares very favorably with the charges of
other publishers offering open access." APC costs aside, editors' other
major complaint, according The Scientist, appears to be with BMC
management, described as "uncompromising" on a range of issues facing the
company. Kuan-Teh Jeang, editor-in-chief of the BMC journal Retrovirology,
echoed most editors in supporting open access, but questioned BMC's
execution. "We all feel open access is where we want to donate our time,
energy, and reputations," Jeang told The Scientist. "What we want from BMC
is a sense that they value us as equal team members."  Richard Feinman,
co-editor-in-chief of Nutrition and Metabolism, was more blunt in his
assessment, telling The Scientist that "open access is going to move
forward and if the BMC management can meet this challenge, fine, if not,
they should be replaced." Cockerill seemed unfazed by the criticism saying
he valued the input of editors. "As with every challenging endeavor, there
will occasionally be problems along the way," he told the LJ Academic
Newswire. "The editors of new open access journals have taken on an
important and challenging task. We are working hard with them, to make
their journals a success." As for BMC's success? Cockerill said the
company was "doing well." Although BMC is still not yet profitable, he
said, "Support from authors for BioMed Central has never been stronger.
Submissions are at record levels. Wider support for open access, too,
continues to grow each day."

Copyright 2006, Library Journal